Employment Lawyers Ringwood

Most private-sector employment relationships in Victoria are governed principally by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the National Employment Standards (NES), any applicable modern award or registered enterprise agreement, and the terms of the individual employment contract. Other federal and Victorian laws may also apply, including anti-discrimination laws, Victorian occupational health and safety obligations (including psychological health and psychosocial hazards), privacy obligations, superannuation, tax, and state long-service leave.

For most owner-operated and mid-sized businesses across Melbourne's east, the practical risks concentrate in a handful of areas: unclear or out-of-date contracts, informal performance management, poorly-conducted investigations, misclassification of contractors, and terminations handled without procedural fairness. Getting these right materially reduces exposure to unfair-dismissal, general-protections and underpayment claims.

We advise employers from our Ringwood office by appointment, or by phone or video where more convenient. The focus is on decisions that hold up if challenged — sensible documents, defensible processes, and prompt, proportionate responses to issues before they escalate.

A well-drafted employment contract records the essential terms, sets clear expectations, and protects confidential information and legitimate business interests once the employment ends. It should reflect the correct award or agreement coverage, deal with hours, probation, remuneration, leave, notice, deductions, intellectual property, confidentiality and any post-employment restraints, and be consistent with the NES minimums that cannot be contracted out of.

Workplace policies sit alongside the contract. Clear, lawful, non-contractual policies on conduct, performance, leave, workplace behaviour, use of technology, drug and alcohol, and complaints support consistent expectations and processes across the business. They should be expressed to be policy (not contractual), reviewed periodically, and communicated with training and acknowledgement. Whether a particular direction to an employee is enforceable still depends on the direction being lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.

For newer obligations — including the workplace right to disconnect and the tighter framework for engaging contractors and casuals — existing template documents often need updating. We review and revise contracts and policies to reflect current law and the way the business actually operates.

Sustained underperformance and workplace complaints are common triggers for legal risk. The distinction matters: performance concerns are managed through a documented performance-improvement process; misconduct allegations are dealt with through a disciplinary process; and serious complaints (including bullying, harassment and discrimination) usually require a properly-scoped workplace investigation before any decision is made.

Good practice in these processes typically involves clear notice of the concerns, a meaningful opportunity to respond, an unbiased decision-maker, and reasons for the outcome. The requirements vary with the process and the risk profile. In an unfair-dismissal context, s 387(d) of the Fair Work Act focuses on whether the employer unreasonably refused an employee's request for a support person at discussions relating to the dismissal — it is not a universal positive duty to offer a support person, or to allow a paid advocate, in every workplace meeting. We help employers scope and structure the process, draft the correspondence, prepare interview outlines, weigh the evidence and record findings that can be relied on if the outcome is later challenged.

Where an investigation is required, it can be conducted internally by a suitably-independent manager or externally. Whichever route is chosen, the terms of reference, the standard of proof, confidentiality obligations and the interaction with any parallel WorkSafe, Fair Work or police process need to be worked through at the outset.

Terminations are the highest-risk single event in an employment relationship. Depending on the reason, timing and process, the risks include an unfair-dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act, a general-protections application (with or without dismissal), an unlawful termination claim, a discrimination complaint, or a claim for accrued entitlements or notice in lieu.

Unfair-dismissal applications must generally be filed within 21 days of dismissal taking effect, and the Fair Work Commission's approach turns on whether there was a valid reason and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances. The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code applies to employers with fewer than 15 employees; a dismissal that is consistent with the Code is relevant to whether the dismissal was unfair, and following and documenting the Code assists a small-business employer to defend a claim. Different considerations apply to summary dismissal for serious misconduct and to genuine redundancy, which must satisfy the statutory definition (including consultation and consideration of redeployment).

General-protections claims are structured differently. They focus on adverse action taken because of a workplace right or protected attribute. Section 361 creates a statutory presumption that the action was taken for the alleged prohibited reason unless the person taking the action proves otherwise, and the authorities require that the prohibited reason be an operative reason for the action. We prepare the employer response, advise on strategy at the FWC conciliation, and where a settlement is appropriate, prepare a deed of settlement (with mutual releases, confidentiality, non-disparagement and, where relevant, restraint acknowledgements).

Post-employment restraints — non-compete, non-solicitation of clients or staff, and non-dealing clauses — are prima facie void as restraints of trade and are enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable to protect a legitimate business interest. Reasonableness is fact-sensitive and is assessed by reference to the employee's actual role, the confidential information and client relationships genuinely at risk, and the geographic and time limits of the restraint. Enforceability of an excessive clause can also depend on severance principles and the drafting of any cascading or ladder alternatives.

Practical protection comes from a combination of tightly-drafted restraint clauses, robust confidentiality obligations, express intellectual property assignments, sensible information-security controls, and a well-managed exit process (including a documented handover of files, devices and passwords). We advise on drafting, on exit management, and on the options available when a former employee is competing in breach of a restraint — including cease-and-desist correspondence, undertakings and, where necessary, urgent injunctive relief.

The Australian Government has announced reforms intended to ban non-compete clauses for low- and middle-income workers, intended to take effect from 2027 subject to further consultation and to legislation passing Parliament. The reforms are not yet law and existing restraints continue to be assessed under current common-law principles. We monitor the position and factor it into drafting and enforcement advice.